Re: wallerstein on WTC

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Wallerstein is wrong on a number of counts. The attack is meant to
show that the US (& its allies) are not invulnerable and that it cannot
simply impose imperial rule with no costs to its own citizens. It is not
meant to show that the US is a paper tiger. This brings me to a second
point. I believe that bin Laden or (whoever is behind this) is relying upon
the US not being a paper tiger. The intent is to cause the US to react in
very strong terms. There is much that the US can do, from massive bombing of
Afghanstan and Iraq and other "rogue" states to the use of ground troups-
for example to install the northern alliance against the Taliban as the
government in Kabul. Bush has already termed this a war. The terrorist act
has created an almost overpowering sense of patriotism and desire for
revenge among the populace.Bush has no choice but to do something relatively
dramatic even if it should involve some US casualties. I doubt there will be
much if any sympathy in the west for the thousands of innocents who will be
killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. Criticism of  a violent response will be
unpatriotic. In a war situation everyone must support the government. There
will be no time for anti-globalisation protests, addressing environmental
problems. There will be no negotiation of peace between Israel and
Palestine. Indeed. the terrorists have created the conditions in which the
Israelis may kill Arafat, and save the terrorists the trouble of ridding the
movement of one they regard as a sell-out.
 For the Jihad against the US  a violent reaction is on balance positive. It
will further inflame hatred against the US and provide more video footage of
US atrocities to steel Jihad warriors in their determination. The media has
played over and over the ghastly footage of the terrorist acts ,  footage of
utter devastaton, faces of grief and despair, outpourings of sympathy and
solidarity from the world. Then today religious services and other rituals
of remembrance. This all produces the strongest feelings of solidarity.
Western leaders appear prominently in all these rituals the tv panning on
them, and of course their own ritualistic speeches.  What is created is not
just a nation grieving but a nation at war that must avenge this great evil
and punish not only those responsible but also any state who harbored or
gave aid to them. Wallerstein is dead wrong. It is not that there is little
that the US can do.There is little that the US can do not to do a great deal
of killing and destruction  Anything else will show that  Bush is a weak
leader. Bush claims this is a war. THe enemy is terrorism and countries that
give it support. How can Bush do anything but show the awesome power of the
US by inflicting terrible damage upon these enemies? What would be a
realistic alternative? The terrorists have not only chosen the time and the
place of the first battle. They have also created conditions that make it
virtually impossible for the US to do anything but undertake a very forceful
counter-attack, an attack anticipated and welcomed I expect by the
terrorists themselves for it will foster ideal  conditions for recruiting
more troops for the Jihad against the west. I hope this is all wrong. We
have no choice except to fight against the blind rage, the backlash against
arabs and muslims, minimize the severity of the response, and cool people
down. Given the nature of the Taliban government perhaps on balance imposing
a client government might have some positive aspects. However, externally
imposed governments are not likely to be left in peace in Afghanistan and
those of the Taliban who remain are not likely to confine their
counter-attack to Afghanistan.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen E Philion <philion@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lbo-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:17 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:17140] wallerstein on WTC


>
>
>
> Comment No. 72, Sept. 15, 2001 "September 11, 2001 - Why?"
>
> On September 11, 2001, the whole world watched a human tragedy and a
> great drama, and everyone was fixated on it. In the U.S., four
> commercial airliners were hijacked in the early morning. The
> hijackers numbered 4-5 persons in each plane. Armed with knives, and
> having at least one person among them capable of piloting the plane
> (at least once it was in the air), the hijackers took over the
> planes, ousted (or killed) the pilots and directed the planes on
> suicide missions. Three of the planes hit their targets: the two
> towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in
> Washington.
>
> Given both the amount of fuel aboard and the technical knowledge to
> know at which height the planes should hit the buildings, the
> hijackers managed to destroy completely the two towers and carve a
> big hole in the Pentagon. As of now, there are probably more than
> 5000 dead (no one has an exact figure) and many more hurt and
> traumatized. The U.S. air network and financial institutions have
> ground virtually to a halt, at least for this week, and untold
> short-range and middle-range economic damage has been done.
>
> The first thing to note about this attack is its audacity and its
> remarkable success. A group of persons, linked together by ideology
> and willingness to be martyrs, engaged in a clandestine operation
> that must be the envy of any secret service agency in the world. They
> obtained entry into the United States, managed to board with knives
> four airplanes, which were leaving from three airports almost
> simultaneously, and all of which were heading on transcontinental
> flights and therefore had large amounts of fuel on board. They took
> over the planes, and managed to get three of them to reach their
> targets. Neither the CIA nor the FBI nor U.S. military intelligence
> nor any one else had any advance notice or was able to do anything to
> stop this group.
>
> The outcome was the most devastating such attack in the history of
> what we call terrorist attacks. No previous attack killed more than
> 400 or so persons. Even at Pearl Harbor, to which the analogy is
> being widely made, and where the attack was conducted by the military
> forces of a state, many fewer people were killed. Furthermore, this
> was the first time since the Civil War (1861-1865) that warfare
> occurred within the boundaries of the continental United States. The
> U.S. has since been engaged in many major wars - the Spanish-American
> War, the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam -
> (not to speak of "minor" wars), and in all of them the actual
> fighting occurred outside these boundaries. The fact that warfare
> occurred in the streets of New York and Washington constituted the
> biggest shock to the American people of this attack.
>
> So, the big question is why? Virtually everyone is saying that the
> person responsible for the attack is Osama bin Laden. It seems a
> plausible assumption, since he has declared his intention to carry
> out such acts, and perhaps in the near future U.S. authorities will
> produce some evidence substantiating this assumption. Let us suppose
> this is correct. What would bin Laden hope to achieve in attacking
> the U.S. in this spectacular way? Well, this could be seen as an
> expression of anger and revenge for what bin Laden (and others)
> consider the misdeeds of the U.S. throughout the world, and
> particularly in the Middle East. Would bin Laden think that, by such
> an act, he could persuade the U.S. government to change its policies?
> I seriously doubt that he is so naive as to think this would be the
> reaction. President Bush says he regards the attack as an "act of
> war" and possibly bin Laden, if he is the perpetrator, thinks the
> same. Wars are not conducted to persuade the opponent to change his
> ways, but to force the opponent to do so.
>
> So let us reason as though we were bin Laden. What has he proved by
> this attack? The most obvious thing that he has proved is that the
> United States, the world's only superpower, the state with the most
> powerful and sophisticated military hardware in the world, was unable
> to protect its citizens from this attack. What bin Laden, again
> presuming he is in fact the force behind it, wished to do, clearly,
> is to show that the U.S. is a paper tiger. And he wished to show it,
> first of all, to the American people, and then to everyone else in
> the world.
>
> Now this is as obvious to the U.S. government as it is to bin Laden.
> Hence the response. President Bush says he will react forcefully, and
> the U.S. political elite of both parties have given him their
> patriotic assent without any hesitation. But now let us reason from
> the point of view of the U.S. government. What can they do?  The
> easiest thing is to obtain diplomatic support of condemnation of the
> attack and justification of any future counterattack. This is exactly
> what Secretary of State Powell said he would be doing. And it is
> reaping its rewards. NATO has said that, under Article 5 of the
> treaty, a military attack on the U.S. (which they consider this to
> be) requires all its members to give military support to the
> counteraction, if the U.S. requests it. Every government in the
> world, including that of Afghanistan and North Korea, has condemned
> the attack. The sole exception is Iraq. It is true that popular
> opinion in Arab and Muslim states has not been as supportive of the
> U.S. but the U.S. will ignore that.
>
> The fact that the U.S. has achieved this diplomatic support, perhaps
> later a U.N. resolution, will hardly make bin Laden quake in his
> boots. The diplomatic support is going to seem to be thin gruel for
> the American people as well. They will demand more. And more almost
> inevitably means some kind of military action. But what? Whom will
> the U.S. Air Force bomb? If bin Laden is behind the attack, there are
> only two possible targets, depending on further knowledge about the
> evidence: Afghanistan and/or Iraq. How much damage will that do? In
> half-destroyed Afghanistan, it hardly seems worthwhile. And the U.S.
> has been restrained about bombing Iraq for many reasons, including
> not wishing to lose lives. Maybe the U.S. will bomb someone. Will
> that convince the American people and the rest of the world that the
> U.S. is too fearsome to attack? Somehow I doubt it.
>
> The truth of the matter is that there is not too much that the U.S.
> can do. The CIA tried for years to assassinate Castro, and he's still
> there. The U.S. has been searching for bin Laden for some years now,
> and he's still there. One day, U.S. agents may kill him, and this
> might slow down this particular operation. It would also give great
> satisfaction to many people. But the problem would still remain
> whole. Obviously, the only thing to do is something political. But
> what? Here all accord within the U.S. (or more widely within the
> pan-Western arena) disappears. The hawks say that this proves that
> Sharon (and the present Israeli government) are right: "they" are all
> terrorists, and the way to handle them is with harsh riposte. This
> hasn't been working so well for Sharon thus far. Why will it work
> better for George W. Bush?
>
> And can Bush get the American people to pay the price? Such a hawkish
> mode does not come cheaply. On the other hand, the doves are finding
> it difficult to make the case that this can be handled by
> "negotiation." Negotiation with whom, and with what end in view?
> Perhaps what is happening is that this "war" - as it is being called
> this week in the press - cannot be won and will not be lost, but will
> simply continue. The disintegration of personal security is now a
> reality that may be hitting the American people for the first time.
> It was already a reality in many other parts of the world.
>
> The political issue underlying these chaotic oscillations of the
> world-system is not civilization versus barbarity. Or at least what
> we must realize is that all sides think they are the civilized ones,
> and that the barbarian is the other. The issues underlying what is
> going on is the crisis in our world-system and the battle about what
> kind of successor world-system we would like to build.(1) This does
> not make it a contest between Americans and Afghans or Muslims or
> anyone else. It is a struggle between different visions of the world
> we want to build. September 11, 2001 will soon seem to be, contrary
> to what many are saying, a minor episode in a long struggle that will
> go on for a long time and be a dark period for most people on this
> planet.
>
> by Immanuel Wallerstein
>
> [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission
> is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others
> and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites,
> provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is
> displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other
> forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the
> author at iwaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fax: 1-607-777-4315. These
> commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
> on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of
> the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
>
> Stephen Philion
> Lecturer/PhD Candidate
> Department of Sociology
> 2424 Maile Way
> Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
> Honolulu, HI 96822
>